urbanSTL

Someone said the Dallas aquarium costs $19. I really can't see people paying that. One attribute of St. Louis is the low-cost and free attractions.

I don't know if we need a Downtown aquarium. Maybe the City Museum and the Zoo could work together or something, but I don't see any need for a Downtown aquarium when you have these two others.

Same with museums and stuff. It's one thing to have the Eugene Field House and a few smaller museums Downtown. They don't seem to be replicating anything. But having a Downtown history or art museum when we have those fantastic ones at Forest Park doesn't seem to make that much sense. One thing about the Forest Park museums is that admission is free. I don't know if that would be as likely with a Downtown museum.

It'd be nice if we could put some money behind it (thus avoiding the issues they've apparently been having), and get them a sparkling new space. Just a dream, but it'd be cool.

Laclede's Landing maybe?

Sounds like a slumlord for marine animals. Same story, different characters.

Slumlords never start out with bad intent. They just underestimate the responsibility of what it takes to provide living things with decent accommodation. Then the management gets away from them, geta totally out of hand, and the next thing you know, you've got a slumlord in your neighborhood.

The guy doesn't need new digs. His tenants need to be relocated to a safe place and the rest of the stuff sold or taken to a dumpster.

Northside Neighbor wrote:Sounds like a slumlord for marine animals. Same story, different characters.

Slumlords never start out with bad intent. They just underestimate the responsibility of what it takes to provide living things with decent accommodation. Then the management gets away from them, geta totally out of hand, and the next thing you know, you've got a slumlord in your neighborhood.

The guy doesn't need new digs. His tenants need to be relocated to a safe place and the rest of the stuff sold or taken to a dumpster.

I wonder what's happened? One always worries about animals in any form of captivity, but the World Aquarium's been around for decades (I want to say at least 25 years) and until recently has had a pretty good reputation - at least as far as I've heard.

One would think if management has underestimated the responsibility of what it takes to provide living things with decent accommodation that would have been more in evidence before now.

-RBB

Imagine if our history, science, and art museums were downtown and all the traffic those would bring. A logical location for an aquarium would be Forest Park or the newly aquired Forest Park Hospital urban prairie but I think it would be best located downtown. I think all this talk is for not though. Aquariums are massively expensive and unless we're getting a $200million donation like the Aquarium in Atlanta I don't think we'll be getting much more than a relocated World Aquarium. How about the Mercantile Library?

I think its hard to do an aquarium in an existing building. The amount of maintenance and equipment required to support them has got to be extensive. I'd imagine that would be hard to do in an existing building.

I've always thought the empty lot next to the flood wall on Chouteau's landing (bordered by the flood wall, railroad tracks, Chouteau, and Cerre) would make for a good aquarium location. Cool location, plenty of space, next to the river. It could also help be a catalyst to more development in Chouteau's Landing.

I'd prefer it stay in the City, but...

Maybe Crestwood Mall. Just an idea.

Maybe not.

But this would really anchor that place...I've actually never been to the aquarium, by the way. I'm also hoping a large aquarium will be part of the zoo's expansion.

Ripley's constructed two for-profit aquariums in Gatlinburg and Myrtle Beach. I've been to the one in Gatlinburg and it is pretty good. Can Branson be far behind?

https://www.ripleyaquariums.com/Gatlinburg

As someone who wouldn't mind if the Science Center were scrapped entirely, I'd rather see the available philanthropic funds flow toward our world class zoo (or art or history museum for that matter) than have another large institution with assumedly enormous operating expenses competing for the same pie.

It's okay to have to go to Chicago for a great aquarium, just as they have to go to St. Louis to see a great monument, Maris Gras parade, baseball team, or brewery.

^ I have to disagree with you on the Science Center. I think it is very cool and a great family attraction, unique IMO. Regarding an Aquarium, this being part of the zoo is a no-brainer. Where to squeeze it in, is another story. I'm not sure a world-class aquarium would fit in that footprint.

Question: Would you be willing to sacrifice some park space somewhere in Forest Park, to house a world-class aquarium?

I say YES (ONLY if that is the only way we get it built). Of course I'd rather see it built elsewhere, but to connect it to the zoo, it would have to be somewhere in the park or on the FP Hosp. site.

I heard something on radio about a $49MM aquarium being bantied about it on North Riverfront...Anyone know anything?